Anca

Cheryl Schatz said,
“Secondly the issue of Deborah has caused many to view the “place” of a woman’s ministry as limited to outside the church while misunderstanding that the people are God are God’s congregation (OT) and the church (NT) and the building that they meet in is not. Where Deborah did her judging should not be the issue. It is the fact that she did the work of a judge that is the issue. When some side-step her work and make the “place” of her work the issue, they are in essence providing a smoke-screen to try to hide the legitimacy of Deborah’s God-ordained work and position in the congregation.”

People who say the it was OK for Deborah to have been a Judge since it was only government and not authority in ministry need to remember one very important thing! In Israel at that time there was no separation of Church and State!!! The Spiritual Leaders lead the Country!! Remember Samuel? Deborah was a Prophet as well as Judge. A perfect mix of both spiritual and government, the highest authority in the land at that time!

Sure Kay, you can borrow my brain. I’m not exactly sure what that entails, but I’m willing to give it a try.

Alison said,
“Why didn’t Jesus say anything about the role of women?”

Excellent point! Notice how unlike the 1 Cor.14 passage, Jesus did not tell Mary if she would learn anything she must shut-up and her ask her husband a home because her voice is disgusting! Rather she sat at his feet as a student and Jesus defended and commanded her for it! If Jesus wasn’t worried about the authority she would assert over the men disciples by learning and asking questions in that assembly, then why should the men of today? Are they better than Jesus and the disciples?

Mike said,” Paul says “husband of one wife” (or “man of one woman”) to make sure that the overseer was not practicing polygamy, so hopefully a single man would not be practicing polygamy either, or he would be unqualified. A single man however would still be a “he.”

Mike that is a very good point! BUT, when using the same logic the other way around, we come to the same exact conclusion in regards to women! Let me explain. You are using common sense and realizing that it wasn’t necessary for Paul to address the unmarried men in that way since it wouldn’t be a moral issue for them in the first place. Simply put, the unmarried man cannot( by it’s very definition) be polygamous. For if you are polygamous, than you are also married! You are recognizing that Paul wasn’t’ addressing all men in general but rather the polygamous man. And it is on that recognition that you know better than to disqualify all men in general. I encourage you to be Faithful with this logic and carry that exegesis Full Circle!

Using the same logic, can we say that since in that culture women were not allowed to be polygamous, Paul would not have had a reason to address them in that context? That it was already understood from silence and culture that women, (substituted for men in your conclusion) were not polygamous? That Paul was not making a broad point but had a particular audience in mind in regards to the restriction and that women and unmarried men were not it? So then, if single men are not excluded on the those grounds of not meeting the criteria, than neither should the women be excluded! As far as you saying “At least he is a he” – think about it! It wouldn’t matter since “shes” were not polygamous and Paul would not need that restriction place on them in order to qualify for that position! Paul did not address the women for the same reason he did not address the unmarried men! He was not concerned with the sexes, he was concerned with polygamous men! It was not a command to restrict the unmarried men nor the women, it was a command to restrict the polygamous who at that time were only males!
After knowing the motive behind Paul’s command, using the argument to justify the exception for unmarried men but not women is being partial and dishonest!

Will you please help me with a problem I keep running into by giving me some expert advice? Every Friday night I have a prayer meeting in my home with a mixed group of both men and women. Since the men have different biological parts than the women, they have an issue that applies particularly to them. I unfortunately had to put a sign on the bathroom door that says” Any Man Who Wants To Use MY Bathroom Must Put The Toilet Set Down After He Is Done, Or He May not Use It! I The next thing I know, the men start arguing with the women and refuse to allow any of them to use the bathroom! They insisted that since the note addressed men only that the women were not allowed to use the bathroom!! That because of the specific mention of the men the women did not qualify! I was so disappointed to see that they had completely missed my point and treated the women so unfairly! What do you think I should tell the men to help them understand what I really meant?

If I offended you by the above example, please remember that Jesus also spoke in parables. As foolish as the story above may seem, when one uses the “husband of one wife” phrase to restrict women from aspiring to the position of an overseer, they are using the same unintelligent logic as the men did in the story above!

Cheryl, will you please delete my first post and replace it with this one? Thanks.

Mike, you said,” The 1 Corinthians 14 passage has to do with the corporate worship setting and specifically the judgment of prophetic words.”

I beg to differ. When reading the whole text of Corinthians 14 the passage has to do with the corporate worship setting and specifically prophecy for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of the church in contrast with speaking in tongues without an interpretation(reference 1 Cor. 14:3-6). Only briefly is the judgment of prophetic words mentioned in vs 29. The vs says,” Let the prophets speak two or three , and then let the other judge” KJV.

You said,”I do think that this passage shows is an ecclesiastical authority that is by men and that the men are to publically correct an errant prophetic word primarily because the women are not the elders/pastors.”

In vs 29 the words “other judge” are not being directed to a specific gender but rather they are gender neutral and and function specific. No where does it imply that the “others” judging prophecy must be elders or leaders. One has to assume such a thing because it simply isn’t in the text. It is wise to also look at what else scripture says about judging prophesy. Hear are some of those passages.

1 John 1:4
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”

Notice how prophecy is judged by the testing of the SPIRITS. Biblically we know that when a true prophet is speaking, they are not speaking of their own words but it is the Spirit of God speaking His message through the prophet. The prophet is only the vessel who has the gift see and hear what the Spirit of the Lord is saying, but the words themselves are from the Lord. Also, throughout the scriptures, three sources for spirits are often mentioned. The Spirit of God, evil spirits, and the human spirit. That may be a new concept to you but are you able to find another source outside of those three for spirits? It makes sense then that the “Beloved” are to test the spirits to see if it is the Lord speaking, the flesh, or a deceiving/evil spirit. Notice how 1 John 1:4 is directed to the “beloved”! Are only men the “Beloved”? Are only men to test the spirits? If not, then once again we we see in addition to 1 Cor. 14:29 a second witness to the gender inclusive judging/testing of prophecy.

The last vs I found was in 1 Cor 12:10
“To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues”

“To ANOTHER the discerning of spirits.” Again, no gender specific rule for this gift. Anyone whom the Holy Spirit chooses can have this gift! Notice also how prophecy is immediately followed by the gift of discernment, and tongues is immediately followed by the gift of interpreting. I think the coupling and parallel of the two speak volumes. From all the scriptures we find relating to the judging of prophecy, they are connected with discerning or testing the spirits behind the prophecy. There is nothing that limits it to elders or men only. If we were to pick between the two choices, the man or woman with the gift of discernment between spirits would be more qualified to judge prophecy, since that is what the scriptures say is required, than the elder/leader who is not even mentioned. Why should we ignore what is mentioned and opt for and option that has to be implied?
Also in 1 Cor. 14:19 Paul, while referring to prophesying verse speaking in unknown tongues said that he would rather speak five words that are understandable so as to TEACH others rather then ten thousand words in an unknown language. So then considering the context and parallel he makes, it is fair to say that prophecy TEACHES people. So if women teaching men is a sin then women should not be allowed to prophecy because prophecy teaches people, and some of those people might be men. Not to mention the fact that a prophet and prophesying is authoritative and women have been prophets and/or prophesied in the Old and New Testaments. Debora was not only a prophet but also a judge in Israel(Judges 4:4). Both were authoritative as well as spiritual roles since it was in a time where there was no separation of church and state. Men did learn, take directions, and receive correction from her. Unless of course one assumes that as judge, Deborah never had to pass pass a negative judgment against the men. That the men were always well behaved and never needed correction:-) But then you still deal with the fact that she gave Barak in and a whole army instructions! And what shall we do with Hilkiah in 2 Chronicles 34:22-33? These were powerful women in a time when patriarchy ruled, yet that did not stop God from raising them up!

“Let them ask their husbands at home”

What do you do with the unmarried? Who do they ask? Since the author seems to assume that the women will have a husband to ask at home, is it fair to assume he was only addressing married women? Does that mean that the non married women may speak, judge, and and correct prophecy? If women are allowed to teach other women than what about women judging another woman’s prophesy in the church? Whats wrong with that? That would not be in violation of upsetting a mans authority.

Mike said,”I think a woman can bring questions and even correction to her husband.”

Then why are women even allowed to prophecy to men in the first place? Why not just tell their prophecy to their husbands at home and then let the husband repeat it in the church? That would then not violate 1 Cor 14:34,35 nor 1 Timothy 2:12 because she would not be teaching, exercising authority over a man, or speaking since her voice is filth(“shameful”).

In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”

I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man means just what it says it does period, no exceptions! The verse does not say it’s OK as long as she only does so in private. Or as long as it is only one man at a time. Teaching is teaching and correcting heresy is scriptural authority because the Word of God is authoritative. At least that’s what comps say they believe about scripture. When a person allows someone to correct them in that area, they are submitting themselves to the one correcting them. When taken at face value Pricilla violated 1 Timothy 2:12 and a woman prophesying violates 1 Timothy 2:12 as well as 1Cor 14:34-35. One cannot have it both ways! That’s why we cannot just simply take them at face value but need to compare the whole of scripture on the matter. We must not distort and disregard the context of the other twenty or so verses that allow women to serve in church leadership in order to make them fit and comply with two verses that we esteem above the rest. This often results in the adding and subtracting of scripture. Something we are warned not to do.